Talk:The Pirate Bay trial

Criticism

I've removed this paragraph:

"English language reporting on the trial has been faulted as the only English language courtroom reporter, Oscar Schwartz, describes himself as "a leading critic of intellectual property" and an activist. Many articles in blogs and professional publications are based on his reports.(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/26/pirate_bay_neo_nazi)

The cited article doesn't (at least to me) seem too reliable. Until there is at least a second source for the story, it should be out.

Also, if it's going back in again, language like this "reporting on the trial has been faulted" should be avoided! (It's not only wrong but deceiving as well) Floker (talk) 07:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this article to remain a complete whitewash? Is anyone even going to pretend to some balance? How can you say it is "wrong" to say reporting has been faulted when I gave a source faulting it? That same source, The Register, is used four times in the Pirate Bay article and is generally pro-Pirate Bay. Why are they a good source when they same something pro-Pirate Bay and a questionable source when it is not so good? Why in this one case do you demand two sources when two sources are very rare in these articles?Objective3000 (talk) 12:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

There's a difference between sourcing facts and sourcing viewpoints. What Floker is describing is weasel words; using ambiguous or embellished language to describe a point of contention. There's also the weight issue. The question is, is this opinion prominent enough to warrant mention in the article? And is it actually a common enough viewpoint to justify such general language as "has been faulted"? There are editorial sources available that express every conceivable viewpoint on any topic; but we don't include them all in our articles. I don't think this section should remain in the article until more examples of criticism (this particular criticism or others) can be shown. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:48, 1 Mar 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that this is ambiguous or embellished language, and unlike weasel words a source was provided. And that source has been used four times in the Pirate Bay article suggesting that the editors on this subject accept the source. I think it is important to point out that many, if not most, of the English-language sources for information on this subject originate from an admittedly biased source with an agenda. I avoided using any of the more inflammatory discussion of skinheads and Nazi's. Having said that, I am OK with the modifications.Objective3000 (talk) 14:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Weasel words refers to the language used in the article, regardless of sources. Of course it's better to provide sources and that does address the issue to a point, but the right language still needs to be used to describe the sourced point. No one's really questioning the publication itself, but the particular article's editorial nature means it gets slightly different treatment than if it were a simple listing of facts. Again not all opinions deserve mention -- even those found in reliable sources. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:31, 1 Mar 2009 (UTC)

I read the Register daily, and it is a rare article that does NOT include editorial comment.:) It would seem to me that this is a rather important opinion since it relates to sources of information about the subject in this article. In fact, the article appears to question the reliability of their own source.Objective3000 (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

←Well regardless, this particular point is an editorial one, in contrast to other facts sourced with this publication. Anyway, again I'll just say I agree with Floker, that if this is a prominent enough viewpoint to include in the article, more than one source would mention it. I'll let others weigh in now though. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:51, 1 Mar 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me the subject is more on-topic than how many flowers the wife of a witness received, and the name of the florist.:)Objective3000 (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

If how many flowers she received were an opinion, I might agree. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:58, 1 Mar 2009 (UTC)

The Register article supplies many references. It is an important topic. Flowers received by someone not even in the court and irrelevant to the trial is downright silly. The florist used to buy the flowers sent to a person unrelated to the trial or subject of the trial or any of the defendents in the trial is beyond silly.Objective3000 (talk) 15:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Silly or not, what happened with the flowers is a fact. The English press coverage being at fault is an opinion. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:52, 1 Mar 2009 (UTC)

And I believe you are missing the point. I did not say English press coverage was at fault. I said it was faulted. It is a criticism in a criticism section. It is a "fact" that it is an opinion. Criticisms are always opinions. These srticles are becoming more and more one-sided. There are people spreading skull and crossbones images and images of a cartoon depicting copyright holders as fat men surrounded by moneybags that hate children and hate human rights. The articles on copyright and piracy have lost all semblence of neutrality. Anyone that attempts to bring some sort of balance has their changes removed. Meanwhile, we have a pointless section on flowers sent to the wife of a witness in a trial. It's not as though the witness experienced any tragedy. It was just the wife of an expert witness unrelated to anyone in the trial.Objective3000 (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

←(ec with comment below)Your argument is circular. It's a fact that any opinion is an opinion. We're an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. We don't go finding out what people's opinions are and report on them. We report on the facts of an issue, not on what someone happens to feel about the issue -- unless his sentiments are more or less shared across other reliable sources. Encyclopedia articles simply don't include the odd editorial. Your opinion on the state of neutrality in the press of this issue may have merit, but it has no bearing on this article. Maybe the press is generally too biased -- but that shouldn't be a motivation to change the Wikipedia article accordingly. We're not here to push viewpoints or balance out the general press a topic has received. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:22, 1 Mar 2009 (UTC)

The fact that a source used four times in the WP Pirate Bay article is questioning its own sources is highly relevant, particularly when this WP article uses the very source in question. This has nothing to do with general press bias. It releates specifically to sources used by this and related articles. It is a whitewash to pretend this criticism does not exist.Objective3000 (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It would be appreciated if you didn't accuse people of whitewashing or pretending that things don't exist, just because we may not think they deserve to be in the article. I have no motivation to cover anything up and I don't even have an opinion one way or the other as to the neutrality of the reporting. I doubt your logic that if a Wikipedia article's primary source publication posts an editorial criticizing its own source then said Wikipedia article must mention that criticism (your contention that the publication seems to be criticizing itself seems a bit specious, frankly, and very much original research). However even assuming that were sound logic, the facts of this trial could easily be verified using many other reliable sources. The one that "seems to have published a criticism of itself", as you imply, is not the only choice. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:41, 1 Mar 2009 (UTC)

Please do not put words in my mouth. I made no accusations against any specific person. I said nothing about your neutrality. And, I cannot find where I said "seems to have published a criticism of itself" even though you put it in quotes. The fact is that many of the sources used in these articles originate from one point. The neutrality of that one point has been brought into question by a source used four times in the Pirate Bay article. I cannot imagine why that fact would not be considered relevant and important to a fact-based publication.Objective3000 (talk) 17:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I said you implied it. Again, that specific source is replaceable with a source that doesn't carry the issue you describe. By your logic the problem could also be solved by replacing the sources in the article, and then there would be no need for the criticism section. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:28, 1 Mar 2009 (UTC)

First, I did not imply it - you inferred it. Second, please don't put words in quotes that were not said. The point of the criticism is that there may be a bias in a very large number of sources, not just one, if the only English-language court reporter has admitted a bias and an agenda.Objective3000 (talk) 19:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

←It doesn't matter. The logic is faulty anyway. I brought that as an illustrative example. Yes, there "may be" a bias -- but that's an opinion that bears no significance if it's just been voiced by a single source. The fact is, this is an editorial expressing a lone opinion. It doesn't belong in the article. If you can find more reliable sources saying something similar, then that might be more significant. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:02, 1 Mar 2009 (UTC)

If the source is not reliable enough, why is it used four times in the Pirate Bay article. If the NYTimes was used as a reference, and wrote an article saying that it felt its sources and the sources of most stories carried on a subject were questionable, would it not make sense to mention? I do not understand why anyone would be against a criticism section pointing out possible problems with coverage available on a current event from a source that has been deemed reliable in a closely related article. Particularly since there are very few sources on this current event and many seem to originate from the same point. This appears irresponsible to me.Objective3000 (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I never said the source wasn't reliable. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:23, 1 Mar 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The source is purely an opinion piece. This opinion is not encyclopedically notable unless other sources report about it or present similar criticism. It should certainly not be presented as fact or given its own section in the article. Prolog (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The source is commenting on the sources for almost all English language reports, including its own reports that have been used as sources in WP. Why would you hide a criticism of sources used by WP that originated from the source itself? It would be like sourcing the NYTimes, and then ignoring that the NYTimes later questioned its own sources, but keeping the original references. Criticism of article sources is being hidden.Objective3000 (talk) 00:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You keep answering concerns over the opinion's prominence or credence by repeatedly touting its implications. Yes, it's a major thing to say, and yes, it would have significant implications for the article. We get that. But that still doesn't change the fact that only one guy is saying it. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:09, 4 Mar 2009 (UTC)

I understand exactly what you are saying. The problem is, that all sources that one can find on a Google search appear to come from one source. And that is exactly the problem described. Numerous websites have reports. But, they all quote three sources. One source is The Register. It gets its quotes from WiRed. One source is the Guardian. They get their info from WiRed. One source is TorrentFreak. They don't believe in copyright and rarely provide their source. So, the only documented source is WiRed. The Register states that even though WiRed is their source, they are now questioning their own source, and they provide a link to the WiRed reporter’s site where he admits to his bias and agenda. How can this not be relevant? It questions most of the sources used by this article. I am not stating anything as fact, other than a major source for information on the information in this article is called into question by a major user of that source and quoted source on related WP articles. It is in a Criticism section. Not labeled as fact, but as a criticism. Can you deny that it is, in fact, a criticism by a source accepted by WP on related articles? If the NYTimes hid the fact that sources of info were questioned, can you imagine the criticism that they would receive? Why would WP hide the fact that criticism of sources exist, when that criticism comes from an accepted WP source?Objective3000 (talk) 01:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Again you're basically making the same argument. It might be a big deal if the source used by all the other sources were being criticized by multiple reliable publications. But that still isn't the case. You could be right that the New York Times might count as prominent mention all its own, but that's because it's the New York Times. The Register is not the New York Times. One just has more clout than the other. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:36, 4 Mar 2009 (UTC)

My point was that an encylopedia should have at least the same ethics and balance as a newspaper, not the Register. Multiple reliable publications cannot have made any comments at all since there do not exist multiple reliable English-language publications reporting on this and I am talking about criticism of Enlish-language reporting. The only English-language sources I can find at all are The Guardian and the Register, and they both use the same questioned source. This trial has been largely ignored by the English-language press. It is simply not the Earth-shattering event portrayed by the defendents. I do not understand the motive of hiding criticism of the source from a user of that source that has been considered a reliable source by WP on this subject. Do you deny that there is criticism? And please do not tell me to get another source again when I have explained that sources all just copy the same questioned source. the source is in question. Why hide this fact?Objective3000 (talk) 01:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

←There could certainly be multiple reliable publications mentioning a criticism like that. The Register isn't the only one covering this. It doesn't mater that they all use the same source. I will tell you that we do indeed need other sources for this -- meaning other publications that make the same criticism. For example, just as The Register uses one source and criticized it, other publications that use that source could criticize it as well. There's no "motive" to "hide" anything. You really need to get your mind away from that mode of thinking here, because that's not what's going on at all, and it's frankly offensive. I don't hide things. Just because we don't think something merits mention doesn't mean we're trying to hide it. Those are two very different things. I have not denied there is a criticism. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:06, 4 Mar 2009 (UTC)

Sources need only pass the reliability and verifiability criteria. The Register and The Guardian seem to qualify on those counts. One other not mentioned above is Ars Technica, example article here, and seems to be making an effort at straight reporting.

An encyclopedia article shouldn't dwell on the veracity of the sources it uses. It should just use reliable and verifiable sources. When an article starts getting into criticizing the sources it uses, it becomes a meta-article. If there's a problem with the English langauge sources, there is nothing to prevent citing a non-English source. Online translators are freely available. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, The Register has been an acccepted reliable source. And yes, I have added a criticism because that accepted reliable source has questioned English-language reporting -- which it itself uses -- and I referenced that accepted reliable source. As I have explained, there is no other source for English-language reporting. The questioned source is that source. This is circular. How can I provide a second source for criticism when the criticism is that there is only one source and that it is questionable? And, how can a source be considered as reliable, except when it questions its own reliability? That seems backwards. Wouldn't that be the one time that it actually should be accepted as a lone source? Meanwhile, what appears to be the one source of English language reporting has admitted an agenda and bias on his own blog, and we are not allowed to mention that.Objective3000 (talk) 02:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The source is considered reliable. That's not in question. But not everything appearing in a reliable source gets thrown in to an article. There are other things to consider, and I've done my best to illustrate them. And again, as for the multiple-sources thing, copying and pasting from my last response: "For example, just as The Register uses one source and criticized it, other publications that use that source could criticize it as well." You're saying it's not possible for multiple publications to criticize Oscar Swartz. I say, yes, it certainly is possible. The Register did it, and others could, just as easily. You keep repeating that it can't happen, but you've yet to explain your reason for thinking that. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:47, 4 Mar 2009 (UTC)

Wow, my eyes hurt after reading through all this lot. Now, i'm happy to see that no wars apart from a touch typing competition have broken out because of this, and especially happy that everything stayed reasonable and calm. I agree, the register have given excellent material but:

here's what i like to think of as the killer argument on the matter: the proposed 'fact' may very well be 100% true, but, given the nature of the matter, if it is in the article, it may only be worded very carefully, since it can easily be taken wrongly and what have you. But as i see it, the danger of it being wrong, given the extremely harmful nature of the critique, is enough to reason not to put it in. In other words, the chance of a mistake may not exceed 50%, but the penalty is disproportionate.

If it becomes a very well documented matter after the trial, if there are very many sources and the matter is pretty much considered fact, we should definitely have it in the article, but we should wait for this to happen (or not), and not rush it, just to have critique for the sake of itself.

Floker (talk) 09:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

New fraud case

A fraud case has just been brought against the RIAA. I'm not sure how this affects the topic, since the Pirate Bay trial takes place in Europe, but I thought people paying attention here might be interested. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:33, 1 Mar 2009 (UTC)

i haven't read all about it, but as i see it, it doesn't have much to do with tpb. That is given i haven't missed anything. It's definitely interesting though, it should be integrated in the mpaa article, which is pretty much a stub (in the context of the size of the matter) Floker (talk) 09:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Shut down of The Pirate Bay?

As of late evening the 2nd of March The Pirate Bay cannot be reached any longer. I guess that is news to be included in the article? Has anyone any details on what has happened? Court order? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.227.198.5 (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It goes down all the time. There's no reason to think this has anything to do with the trial. If you want to keep up with all the downs and ups see the forum, [1], [2]. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:47, 2 Mar 2009 (UTC)

Only the site is down. Trackers are still up. It is a technical issue. More information can be found at http://torrentfreak.com JeremyWJ (talk) 01:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The Article on tf also talks about how the downtime doesn't have anything to do with the trial. Now, we'll see if we get similar news for different reasons in the next weeks, i'm looking forward to the verdict. And not only to finish this article. Floker (talk) 08:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

plaudit for fourth and fifth day sections

i just thought i might add some commendation for the fourth and fifth day sections of the article. i don't feel comfortable enough with the article yet to write the other missing sections, but those two paragraphs i find very good. appearantly they're made by User:Equazcion and an IP-user. Floker (talk) 09:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

`Preciate the commendation but I actually didn't have anything to do with those. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:24, 4 Mar 2009 (UTC)

explanation of king kong defense

Does anyone else find the explanation to be incredibly redundant? The explanation just seems to repeat the actual quote.--68.56.17.70 (talk) 15:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

They decided to merge the article about the king kong defense into this article a week or so ago. That is why it is covered like it is. JeremyWJ (talk) 20:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for Protection?

Why hasn't anyone moved to edit protect this page? Vandals are running wild —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.213.40.199 (talk) 11:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

News for the article

- The verdict has been appealed by Carl Lundström. - The court has filed a complaint at the police. Somebody leaked the verdict before 11:00CEST. - The Swedish pirate party gained 3000 new members during the day and are now 3 largest politcal party in sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.188.185 (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Article Name

Sorry but "The Pirate Bay trial" is frankly a stupid name. The article should follow the naming convention of other court case articles: "Sweden v. The Pirate Bay" or whatever the Swedish Case naming equalvilent is. --68.209.2.187 (talk) 22:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

IFPI v The Pirate Bay. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 22:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the name should be changed.--69.161.78.31 (talk) 07:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Alphageekpa (talk) 12:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the name should be changed to the name of the actual name of the case. --Sauronjim (talk) 12:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The court refers to the case as "Mål nr B 13301-06". For the press they refer to it as "Rättegången i det s.k. Pirate Bay-målet"[3] (Trial in the so called Pirate Bay case). I can't find them, the Swedish or English media using the vs. notation anywhere. --Para (talk) 13:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

World of Warcraft

I'm a little confused. Why would this be pirated at all given the nature of the game (i.e. requires an active CD key and is available for free download if you possess a key)? If it was inserted as a joke or vandalism then it should be taken out. Narco (talk) 04:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

There are many server emulators for WoW and WoW is indeed often pirated (check out piratebay or any other torrent site0. If it was included in the case then it should be in the article or if there is a lot more then what we are listing then we need to consider whether the specific information is actually that important Nil Einne (talk) 07:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Verdict and reactions section is terribly biased and completely one-sided

Why are there no reactions from the media organizations, etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.123.46 (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well this is a rather general statement but the "media organizations" appear to have the same reaction to most of these situations. They just wait for the results (or sometimes not even that long) and then do a PR bit about how they won no matter what the results were. The best example of this is probably the MPAA after the pirate bay servers were confiscated. Afterwards they released statements saying how they had succeeded and that pirates get punished yet the pirate bay was back up in 3 days with twice as many members (free advertising anyone?). Although yes I agree their statements and reactions should still be added to provide both points of view. I would do it but I have a feeling it would be rather biased so it would be best left to someone else. Adimus28 (talk) 14:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Because the reactions of the affected parties and the general public are far more relevant than the reactions of the media organizations, who have little direct stake in the matter. If someone can find a reaction from an organization representing the artists who would ostensibly be affected by this (meaning: one which is actually controlled by artists, not one which controls the artists), that would likely also be relevant. Esn (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)